Trucks: Productivity, safety are issues

Premium ContentMouse over Home then click on Premium Content for information.

No question about it: Those trucks cruising alongside you down the highway are carrying a lot of weight.

And in the future, many of them could be even heavier — and in some cases, larger — depending on the outcome of a debate that's divided the freight transportation industry, shipping customers and safety advocates.

Proposals that have made their way into committees in both the U.S. House and Senate would allow states to up the weight limits for commercial trucks traveling on Interstate highways, allow for longer trailers and, in some states, increase the available routes for drivers pulling double- and triple-trailers.

They're both tied to a bigger highway funding bill, with supporters touting them as a move to help clear clogged highways and make roads safer by cutting down on the number of trucks on the road. Opponents, however, say bigger trucks will make for more dangerous roads and damaged infrastructure.

The issue has been so contentious that the latest efforts have been aimed at keeping it from stalling the highway funding bill.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee voted last week to take the truck weight provision out of the bill until federal transportation officials have had more time to research the issue. On Thursday, the American Trucking Associations and the American Association of Railroads — which fall on either side of the issue — issued a joint statement urging House members to avoid putting any new weight and size requirements for trucks back into the bill so it has a better chance of passing without delay.

Still, the topic isn't likely to go away anytime soon. When it comes to bigger trucks, everyone — from trucking companies to railroads to road departments — has an opinion.

The proposal at issue would increase the Interstate weight limit for most trucks to 97,000 pounds, up from the 80,000-pound limit that's on the books in many states. To carry the heavier load, vehicles would have to be equipped with an additional sixth axle, rather than the standard five.

One of the main advocates for the weight change says the change will make the industry more productive, allowing shippers to move more products in less time for less money. The Coalition for Transportation Productivity, a group that has about 200 supporters ranging from Sarpy County-based trucking giant Werner Enterprises to the Grocery Manufacturers Association to Nestlé USA, has been gathering support and research on the issue for about three years.

As an example, it notes that higher weight limits would help MillerCoors, a member company, take 2,000 trucks off the road each week.

Moving more products on each truck could help the trucking industry compete with railroads, said John Runyan, the group's executive director.

"We've got some real challenges, with most competitors already at heavier weights," he said. "It's hobbling our own industry as a result."

And backers of the higher weight trucks say the changes wouldn't compromise safety.

The coalition points to several studies on the safety of heavier rigs. Notably, it cites U.S. Department of Transportation and Transportation Research Board studies it says show that the heavier trucks would "maintain nearly the same braking and handling capabilities as 80,000-pound, five-axle vehicles."

The amount of extra weight trucks could pick up, however, could vary greatly from state to state.

In many states, including Nebraska and Iowa, the weight limit for most trucks on Interstate highways is 80,000 pounds. But it's not a hard-and-fast rule; with a conditional use permit in Nebraska, that number can be upped to 95,000 pounds. Similar permits also are available to haulers moving big loads in Iowa.

On non-Interstate highways, both states allow heavier trucks.

In total, 41 states already allow at least some trucks to carry more than 80,000 pounds on non-Interstate highways, Runyan said, adding that in many cases, trucks running on the standard five axles carry as much as 100,000 pounds.

Then there's the issue of longer trailers, which has become linked to the discussion about weight. Lawmakers have been asked to consider expanding the number of routes available to trucks hauling triple trailers, in states where they're allowed on a limited basis (almost exclusively in Western states).

And double trailers, which are allowed in Nebraska, among other states, could go from 28 feet per trailer to 33 feet. That provision, unlike the others, remains in the bill that will go to the floor for debate.

Both of those ideas have raised concerns by opponents such as the Truck Safety Coalition, a national organization interested in reducing the number of truck crashes.

John Lannen, the Truck Safety Coalition's executive director, said a pilot program for heavier trucks in Vermont has yielded concerns about higher numbers of accidents. He said longer, heavier trucks are more likely to be in a crash, so he's pleased lawmakers want to learn more before making a decision.

"You don't compromise on people's lives," he said.

The proposals also have stirred discussion about crumbling infrastructure, with each side saying that the other stands to put the country's highways in worse shape.

The railroad industry, trucking's big competitor, has honed in on damage caused to roads by heavy vehicles — and who's paying for it. In a press release on the issue, the Association of American Railroads pointed to a U.S. DOT study that found repairing bridge damage caused by higher truck weights could cost as much as $65 billion.

Omaha's Union Pacific Railroad is opposed to any changes to truck size, said spokesman Tom Lange.

"There are a lot of highway infrastructure problems that we need to overcome in the country generally," Lange said. "Adding heavier trucks to the equation doesn't seem like it's part of the solution to fix the infrastructure."

Other local companies in the shipping industry have mixed views.

Werner, while listed as a supporting organization of the pro-weight increase group, supports only limited changes, said president and chief operating officer Derek Leathers.

He said the industry has suffered during the recession and needs to get back to healthy before bracing for major equipment overhauls. The company has several customers that are actively supporting the measures, he said, and Werner understands their needs and wants to support them by hauling heavier loads in certain areas.

But overall: "Our support is limited to selected applications with specific customers on specific roads," Leathers said. "Not global changes."

Crete Carrier Corp., the Lincoln-based parent company of three trucking operations — Crete Carrier, Shaffer Trucking and Hunt Transportation — supports a weight increase, but only up to 88,000 pounds.

Jack Peetz, executive vice president and chief operating officer, said being able to haul more freight on a single truck could help keep prices lower for the company, its clients and consumers. But too big of a boost would mean drivers would need more training, trucks would have to get expensive retrofits, and companies might end up struggling under the burden.

Plus, he said, the plan to allow states to opt in or out of higher weights would make it difficult for any company moving freight over long distances.

"It doesn't do the coast-to-coast bigger carriers much good if it's a checkerboard of states that allow it," he said.

Members of the Nebraska Trucking Association also are divided, said the group's president, Larry Johnson. He said there are concerns about who pays for damage to roads — if the agriculture industry picks up the same kind of tab for equally heavy vehicles, for example — and most members are opposed to any idea of expanding triple trailers.

All of the groups lobbying on one side or another say they'll keep pushing, despite the break for more study. House lawmakers provided up to three years for the work.

Sean McNally, a spokesman for the American Trucking Associations, said his group is disappointed that lawmakers weren't ready to make changes.

"At the end of the three years, we will probably be back fighting over the same ground again," he said.

Contact the writer:

402-444-1543, erin.golden@owh.com

« Money

Share